The criminal justice system can be daunting, but you don’t need to go through it alone. Our Criminal lawyers are here to guide you every step of the way.
Contact Our Firm
Charges of Domestic Assault x 2 and Mischief Under withdrawn prior to setting a trial date in the Ontario Court of Justice, Toronto. A.S. was ending a relationship with his girlfriend. The two had been living together for a short period of time. The complainant still maintained her own apartment. An argument erupted over why the relationship was ending and when A.S. requested the complainant to leave his apartment, she refused and a pushing match commenced. The complainant called police and A.S. was charged with two counts of Assault and Mischief to her cell phone. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal lawyer to defend A.S. When Joseph Neuberger reviewed the disclosure including the statement of the complainant and police officer notes, there was inconsistency between the description of the two assaults and the complete lack of any injury and damage to clothing. The cell phone was intact as well. Several pre-trials were held and A.S. agreed to take a course of counselling directed at conflict resolution and after successful completion of the course, the charges were withdrawn and A.S. signed a common law peace bond.
Charge of Sexual Assault withdrawn on eve of second set of motions for records of the complainant’s psychiatric records. M.C. met the complainant on the dating site Plenty of Fish. The two engaged in highly suggestive messaging and then arranged to meet for an intimate encounter. M.C. attended the complainant’s residence and engaged in relations. After, the complainant became angry at M.C. and then later called police and he was charged with sexual assault. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. Joseph Neuberger spent considerable time with the disclosure, and the client reviewing the events. In addition, he obtained the text messages between the parties, that were extremely helpful for cross-examination. However, just prior to the first trial date, the complainant made several posts on social media that raised significant issues regarding her mental at the time of the alleged offence. A private investigator was hired to do a complete social media investigation with a tech expert and as a result the defence brought a third party records motion for her psychiatric records. The motion was adjourned as was the original trial date. A second Application was filed for the records and just prior to the hearing of the applications the charge was withdrawn. Some of the mental health issues were relevant as they related to perception but also to issues of manipulation by the complainant. As a result the complainant did not want to participate in the trial anymore and the Crown withdrew the charges.
Charge of Assault withdrawn prior to setting trial dates in Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. A verbal argument escalated into a physical altercation at traffic court. The altercation was observed by police officers at a traffic courthouse and Y.X. was arrested for domestic assault on the spot. Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners was retained as his criminal defence lawyer to represent Y.X. on the charge. Mariya reviewed disclosure diligently and uncovered a number of issues with the evidence against the client including potential violation of constitutional right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The client was not provided a Mandarin interpret at the police station and could not fully appreciate the rights being explained to her. After an extensive pre-trial with the Crown Attorney, Ms. Protsenko convinced the Crown that only one hour of counseling was required before the charge was to be withdrawn. After a completion of brief counseling, the charge was formally withdrawn.
Charge of Domestic Assault withdrawn after several pre-trials with the prosecutor in the Ontario Court of Justice, Scarborough. The complainant, L.G.’s wife, was upset with L.G. for smoking inside the house. They had an argument and L.G allegedly pushed the complainant to the floor. The complainant tried to get up, however, L.G. kept pushing her so that she would stay down. The complainant also indicated to the prosecutor assigned to this matter that she was tortured and tormented by L.G. throughout many years and that she wanted to proceed to a trial. Mariya Protsenko of Neuberger & Partners was retained by the client on this matter. Mariya conducted a number of pre-trials with the persecutor including face to face meetings and conversations at the courthouse. The prosecutor agreed to withdraw the charge against L.G upon him entering into a common law peace bond. No volunteer work or counseling was required. L.G. attended Scarborough courthouse with Mariya and upon entering into a common law peace bond, his charge was
Charges of Assault and Criminal Harassment withdrawn prior to setting trial date in the Ontario Court of Justice, Newmarket. C.J. and A.J.C. were driving together and there was a road incident with another car that then followed them to a mall parking lot. Once out of the cars an argument ensued and a physical altercation. Part of the altercation was captured by video surveillance from local stores. Joseph Neuberger and John Navarrete were retained as the defence lawyers. After a careful review of the surveillance, there were some frames that were enhanced by the defence which appeared to show the complainant making gestures prior to the physical altercation that could be viewed as assaultive and there could be an argument for self-defence on top of the fact that the complainant had followed C.J, and A.J.C. to the parking lot. After two judicial pre-trials, an agreement was reached for all parties to take some anger management counseling related to road rage and at the end of the therapy it was agreed all charges would be withdrawn. Once the therapy was completed the charges were formally withdrawn.
Charges of Domestic Assault and Mischief Under withdrawn after extensive pre-trial discussions with the Crown. The complainant and M.Y. were in the midst of a separation. An argument erupted over an issue about support. The complainant called police and alleged that M.Y. had pushed her and grabbed her. M.Y. was arrested, and ordered to have no contact and not return to the home. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the defence lawyer. During the course of the criminal proceeding, the complainant wrote to the Crown that she wished to reconcile and have marriage counselling. This was communicated to Joseph Neuberger. Joseph Neuberger spoke with his client and he was in favour of marriage counselling and reconciliation. Joseph Neuberger had several pre-trials with the Crown Attorney and worked out a therapy program for M.Y. that would then turn into marriage counselling. The Crown agreed to withdraw the charge after M.Y. completed 12 sessions successfully. This was done, and the charges were withdrawn.
Charges of Domestic Assault and Mischief withdrawn after extensive discussions with the Crown. J.C. was charged by his soon to be former wife with domestic violence allegations arising from an argument over separation. Joseph Neuberger was retained as his criminal defence lawyer. Once disclosure was received and thoroughly reviewed, it became apparent that the purported assault would have resulted in severe injuries yet, there were no injuries. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger met on three occasions with the assigned Crown and negotiated a withdrawal if the client completed a program of anger management and conflict management therapy. After successful completion, both charges were withdrawn.
Charges of Assault and Mischief withdrawn prior to trial. G.L. was alleged to have been highly intoxicated at a bar and was involved in a fight that resulted in some injury to the complainant and damage to the bar. Defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger was retained. Joseph Neuberger sought the video surveillance from inside the bar, and even though the surveillance video was not the best quality, it appeared that G.L. was attacked first due to some verbal argument. Joseph Neuberger had the client attend for alcohol abuse therapy and tendered the report and the surveillance video to the Crown. After a fruitful pre-trial, the Crown agreed to withdraw the charges.
Client found not guilty after two day trial in Newmarket, Ontario Court of Justice, of charges of Luring x 4, and Communicating to obtain the sexual services of a minor x 2, all arising from the police project Raphael. H.B. was 52 years of age at the time and had looked at the backpages for an escort. He eventually made arrangements to meet two service providers at a hotel and was arrested as it was alleged that he was communicating with an undercover officer pretending to be a 14 year old escort. Joseph Neuberger was retained as the criminal defence lawyer. When Joseph Neuberger took over the file, an extensive meeting with the client yielded information about issues with the client’s phone and he having contacted other service providers. The police provided in disclosure only the texts messages between the undercover and Mr. H.R. The cell phone extraction report from the police similarly only had messages between H.R. and the undercover officer. Joseph Neuberger sought an Order releasing the seized phone to the defence to have it forensically reviewed by the defence expert. The defence expert provided an extraction report that included all other calls and messages between H.R. and other service providers and demonstrated that some messages were truncated and not clear. The defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger provided the Crown with the defence expert material and also prepared a Compilation Report that included all communications over a two hour period to provide full context to the communications with the undercover officer. The evidence established that H.R. was confused between two numbers both having area codes of 289 one of which was the undercover officer. There were numerous messages and it was not a simple back and forth between the officer and H.R. but rather extended well over one hour and 34 minutes. Further, defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger spent over 70 hours with H.R. preparing him to testify. At trial, the defence extraction report, and the Compilation Report provided strong evidence to support H.R.’s evidence. The court found that H.R.’s evidence, although having its credibility issues, was not unbelievable and thus raised a reasonable doubt that he knew the alleged age of the pretend escort. Accordingly, the client was found not guilty of all six charges.
M.T. was originally charged with attempt murder in relation to astabbing incident at a local sports bar and detained in custody. M.T.’s family immediately retained Mr. John Navarrete. Mr. Navarrete spoke to the Crown about the defence position of self-defence regarding the incident in order to obtain bail. Shortly after Crown received the video surveillance of the sports bar which confirmed the triable issue of self defence and thereby consented to client’s release and reduced the charge from attempt murder to aggravated assault, utter threat and carry concealed weapon. Mr. Navarrete later conducted a narrow and focused preliminary hearing cross
examining the alleged victim of the stabbing. Ultimately, the matter went to trial by judge and jury in the Superior Court of Justice located at 361 University Ave. After a two-week trial where the Crown called over 7 witnesses and Mr. Navarrete called M.T. to describe his self-defensive actions, the client was acquitted of aggravated assault and carry a concealed weapon by the jury and only convicted for uttering a threat. The
client received a conditional discharge as his sentence for that charge.
Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results and that the amount recovered and other litigation outcomes will vary according to the facts in individual cases.
